T-Max 3200? Images? Opinions?

I've shot Agfa APX at ISO 1600 and souped it in T-Max. Very little grain, nice contrast. Otherwise, I tried T-Max 3200 at box speed, but souped in D-76 and that made me abandon it: grainy, ugly, poor detail, excessive contrast... However, hearing what Chris said, I may give it another try.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
I've shot Agfa APX at ISO 1600 and souped it in T-Max. Very little grain, nice contrast. Otherwise, I tried T-Max 3200 at box speed, but souped in D-76 and that made me abandon it: grainy, ugly, poor detail, excessive contrast... However, hearing what Chris said, I may give it another try.
Click to expand...

Yeah, try it in Tmax Developer or even Xtol. D-76 sucks for this film. Xtol is ok, Tmax Developer is awesome.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Rodinal is not for T grain films.

My experience for speeds above 1600 (no film is that fast) is that for real pushing and shadows loss, best tones for me are D3200 and DD-X, but I can shoot comfortably at 1600 and 1.4 with Tri-X in very low light...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Tmax films work nicely in Rodinal, though I think the 3200 is not the best in it. I have done A LOT of Tmax 100 in Rodinal with gorgeous results.

hell.jpg


37church.jpg


car.jpg


I've only experimented a little with Tmax 400 in Rodinal. Results were very sharp but tonality was harsh, not as smooth as you get with Tmax Developer or D-76 with Tmax 400 (D-76 sucks for Tmax 3200 but is gorgeous with the 400).

mack_3-19-09_2.jpg


I would like to try again using a shorter developing time and a little more exposure. The sharpness and grain looked really cool.
 
Mark, Juan, Benjamin - thanks!

Yes D3200 is a bit faster than TMZ, but at the cost of grain. This is just too much a compromise for me, even with high-speed films. But it seems to work for many people here. As I believe Roger once wrote, color film is a science, BW is alchemy :)

The shot itself is from presidential elections in Belarus back in 2006, which were recognized by OSCE as rigged. The people are protesters who went out in the blizzard despite threats of violence. I remember snapping the shot instinctively when the crowd exploded with laugher. Easily the best of mine from those sad four days.
 
D3200 in Xtol 1+1 or so controls grain nicely. can produce wonderfully subtle results with nice sharp tight grain. I have 20x24s from D3200 in this developer that are lovely. The grain is there on inspection but its really not obvious unless very close and the overall tonality is amazing IMHO.

Rating Neopan 1600 any more than 640 is pushing it. Ditto D3200 for above 1200. Funny old thing, one is a stop faster on the packet than the other and this matches reality, only both are much slower than box speed.

PS Dilute Xtol gives every bit as much speed as DDX according to my tests with several films (incl TriX, Neopan 400, D3200, Neopan 1600 etc). The Xtol look is gentler and the DDX look a bit rougher and more traditional. Take your pick.

Am I right in thinking that Tmax 3200 is not actually T grain but actually a traditional emulsion? IMO that tends to result in more sparkle and less smoothness of grain if comparisons between other films hold true at this speed. I am now settled on Neopan 1600 for 500/640 and D3200 for 1200 and up so the Tmax is in no mans land for me really. On the subject of Neopan 1600 vs pushed TriX/HP5 there is no question which has the higher true (shadow) speed and its the Neopan 1600. Might give the Tmax 3200 a go if Kodak keeps it on!
 
Last edited:
Mike Johnston over on TOP has put down some thoughts on TMAX P3200 here. Including E.I. and development.

Mike was a beta tester for Kodak's T-grain films.
 
I never liked TMax3200 altho agree with the "shoot at 1600" school of thought. Theoretically , you're overexposing a stop although many maintain shooting at 3200 is underexposing a stop. Kodak was optimistic ... perhaps the marketing department?

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type.
Crazy highlight/shadow problems were made worse by the contrasty lighting frequently found in "available darkness" venues.

In photography there's no such thing as a free lunch...to get an extra something here, you gotta give something there. :)

Eight years after this thread was active changes perspective a lot. In 2018 a pedestrian digital camera will give far superior results at 1600 and beyond. (yes, yes, "To me, to me!")

OTOH, APX 100 at E.I.64 ...bliss.
 
Canyongazer said:
I never liked TMax3200 altho agree with the "shoot at 1600" school of thought. Theoretically , you're overexposing a stop although many maintain shooting at 3200 is underexposing a stop. Kodak was optimistic ... perhaps the marketing department?

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type.
Crazy highlight/shadow problems were made worse by the contrasty lighting frequently found in "available darkness" venues.
Click to expand...

I think that 3200 is meant to be a push speed and not the native speed of the film, which is probably about 1000. This is what people have said, and I have found it to be true when I've used it. And I believe the same goes for Ilford Delta 3200. So 2000 would be a one stop push, and 3200 a 1 and 2/3 stop push. A speed increase developer like T-Max will supply a 2/3 stop (or so) speed increase, and then an additional stop is achieved by using the development time given for the 3200 exposure index. But since this represents a push achieved through increased development, it probably explains the blown highlights you've noticed. And shooting it at 3200 would indeed be an underexposure, possibly accounting for your shadow problems.

So I believe that using it at a somewhat lower exposure index, somewhere closer to its true native speed, perhaps at 1600 together with development in T-Max or DDX or Microphen would help to minimize your highlight and shadow problem, as well as keeping the graininess down a bit!
 
Canyongazer said:
I never liked TMax3200 .....

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type..
Click to expand...

Whether one likes, or dislikes, this film seems to depend on whether one considers the above to be a bug or a feature.

Understanding those two viewpoints would seem to explain the inability to find common ground on the “best” shooting speed, developer and processing regimen for p3200. Best for what?

Some people want a fast film they can use in low light at higher shutter speeds, but which looks as close to Tri-x at 400 as they can get.
I would guess that this group is the group that tends to not love this film, because it can be disappointing if that is what you need, even if using the developers that give you the best chance at achieving that, like, perhaps, Tmax.

Others want something which doesn’t look like everything else, and doesn’t attempt to. One person’s blocked shadows and blown out highlights is another person’s desired high contrast. Fine grain isn’t necessarily what everyone wants for every photographic goal, every time. There are more appropriate films out there for that. There is nothing wrong with a Daido Moriyama esthetic if that is what you want, and you won’t get that with e.g. Pan F.

Shoot p3200 at 3200, develop in stock D76, doubling down by shooting it with a half frame camera and enlarging the heck out of it. In other words, some people feel that the most enjoyable way to use this film is to embrace the suck. Are-bure-boke, it can be excellent for that, if used that way, if that is what you want on that particular day, or night.

I would suggest that reading threads on how best to expose and process this film will tend to be confusing, unless the reader understands exactly what the poster was trying to make the film do.
 
Is this reintroduction 35mm only, or will they be producing 120? I've been shooting some Delta 3200 in my old Makinas III's recently. Has been a lot of fun so far. I rate Ilford at EI 800-EI 1000. Now I have to decide on a developer for the first few rolls.
I have plenty available; DDX (although it's getting kind of old, looks ok?) , or Microphen, maybe TMAX? Never used TMAX.
 
Just bit the bullet and bought 10 rolls TMZ and a jug of TMax developer. We used to use only TMax Dev. at a paper I worked at, but that was years ago and I haven't worked with it since. Any recommendations? It's for a project I'm working on; planning (hoping) to shoot inside a sale barn during a sale. I'm thinking 3200 ISO; some on here saying develop at 6400 ISO time, others saying shoot and develop box speed. I honestly can't remember how we did it at the paper (it's been at least 20 years with the old formulations - I don't know if they've been changed with the re-release.) I'd love to hear some additional thoughts.
Thanks
 
ABrosig said:
Just bit the bullet and bought 10 rolls TMZ and a jug of TMax developer. We used to use only TMax Dev. at a paper I worked at, but that was years ago and I haven't worked with it since. Any recommendations? It's for a project I'm working on; planning (hoping) to shoot inside a sale barn during a sale. I'm thinking 3200 ISO; some on here saying develop at 6400 ISO time, others saying shoot and develop box speed. I honestly can't remember how we did it at the paper (it's been at least 20 years with the old formulations - I don't know if they've been changed with the re-release.) I'd love to hear some additional thoughts.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Tmax Developer was always the best developer for Tmax 3200. Right before TMZ was discontinued, I decided to try some other developers. Nothing came close to the tonality and shadow detail that Tmax Developer gave. It is also the best developer I have tried for Ilford's Delta 3200.

Don't develop at a longer time; use whatever times Kodak recommends for the speed you shoot. That always worked perfectly for the original version and I'm willing to bet it will now, too. Kodak's developing times are usually spot-on. A longer developing just gives you more contrast.

I can't tell you what developing times to use. Kodak has probably changed them for the new film, so my old tested times will no longer be accurate, and I have not yet tried the new stuff.

If you can, shoot a test roll before using it for an important project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom